The Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1868-1895, 1887-10-26
FEDERAL SUPREME COURT.

The Anarchist Case to be Heard-PrOhibi-
ton Cases-NatiOnal Banks.
WASHINGTON, October 81 In the United
States Supreme Court to-day Chief Justice
Waite read the formal order in the Anar-
chist case, OF which notice was given Satur.
day, and which provides for hearing on
Thursday next of the argument upon the
Anarchists for a writ of error. Attorney
General Hunt, of illinois, who was present
in the court -opm, asked whether the
Court desired t sar argument in behalf
Of the State. Tue Chief Justice replied
that the Courf merely wished to notify
him that the airing would be given on
that day in order that he might take such
action in behalf Of the State as he should
think pest.
IF 1 wish to make oral argument in be-
half of the State, asked Acknowledgement
Hunt, "Shall l be permitted to do 500"
"You will, " replied the Chief Justice.
The following is the text of the order
made by the Court:
The Supreme Court of the State of Illinois
Following the precedent in TwitcheIl VS. the
Commonwealth, Wall 32l, we have permitted
this motion TO be made in open court, at the
suggestion of Mr.. Justice Harlan, to whom the
application was frat presented, on account OF
the urgency of the case and its Importance.
But, as was said in that case, "Writs of error to
the State courts have never been allowed as of
right, that is to say as OF course and il is the
duty Of him TO whom application for such a
writ is made, to ascertain from an examination
question, cognizable here on appeal, was made
and decided in the proper court OF the State,
and whether the case on the face OF the record
ing that the proper practice, we will hear coun.
sci on Thursday next, in support of this mo-
ton. not only upon the point whether any ted
in the supreme court of the State but also up
ON the character of those questions, so that we
may determine whether they are such as to
10 Fcr 10 hrfrar tha To-
review. We have caused the Attorn ey- General
of Illinois to be informed that the motion will
be heard at the time stated.
The Court to-day denied the motion to
advance made by Mr.. Packard, of Chicago,
in four prohibition LIQUOR cases from lows
and one from Georgia, standing on the
docket as numbers 1 ,01S and 1901 to 100
inclusive. They involve the same ques-
tons which were presented by the case OF
SIebold & Hagelan, already argued. The
Attorney General OF Kansas, who by rea-
son Of Misrepresentation, did not appear
to argue the latter case orally, was in the
court room this morning, and filed petit
ton for leave to make oral argument now,
notwithstanding the fact that the court has
already taken the case under Adjustment,
The question presented by this case is re-
garded IS very important one since it in
4 wolves the constitutionality of all the pro-
| bibition legislation since the adoption of
| the Fourteenth amendment, which does
not provide for compensation to brewers
and distillers for tbs value of the property
destroyed by the forcible closing OF their
establishments.
| Acknowledgement Garland submitted to
the Court to-day motion to have advanced
! for early hearing the case OF the Receiver
of the First National Bank of buffalo, n.
| y, against ElbTidge SpauldiDg and othels
which involves the question o. the respon.
sibility of the directors OF the National
banks for negligence in the performance
of their duties. The motion to advance /:
made at the request of the Comptroller o.
the Currency.
a decision was rendered oy the Supreme
Court of the United States to-day in TIT
three cases of the United States appellant
Rgainst.the States OF Louisiana, AlabamI
and Mississippi. These we're suits brough
in the court OF claims by the States name(
to recover from the UnSted States five pc
cent of the net proceeds of the sales of pub
tic lands Within their limits and also Il
recover indemnity FOR swamp lands pur
chased by individuals, the proceeds o
which were by statute directed to be ap
piled as far as necessary to the reclamation
of such lands by means of leeves and drain
ing. The United States maintained tn n
the Court of Claims hadsno Jurisdiction t.
determine a cause in which State sueC
| the united states; that part OF tn
claims were barred by the statue OF hmita
tions, and that the United States were 60
titled to make q set off or counter claim oil
account of the States of Louisiana, Ala
bsma and Mississippi under the act o.
August 5, 1861. The Court OF Claims de
cided that it had jurisdiction; that tn
disputed items we're not barred by tb
statute OF limitation, and that set-0tf O
counter claim could not be allowed. Thi
court affirms the judgment, Opinion b
Justice Field,